User talk:Drbogdan

Welcome To Dr. Dennis Bogdan's ("Master Editor II") Talk Page

Welcome! Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   The Basics of Wikicode   Manual of Style   Editing tutorial - 9 videos (26:35)   How to edit a page - video (03:03)   How to write a great article - video (03:38)   Do assume good faith   Do be bold   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Help contribute to articles   Help pages I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Clickable image of the Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.). Place your mouse cursor over a person in the painting to see their name; click to link to an article about them.

(view • discuss)

Page views for User:Drbogdan

A Latin motto that you appear to have contributed

News media - template

"Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus" means something close to "We the help to make internal for those who do not suckle." (Auxilium is a noun, facere is infinitive, suckling is the reverse of sucking, and there is a far more correct Latin word for Internet.) "Iuvamus ne interrete sugat" would still be silly, but at least it would be Latin. And how can anyone enjoy, knowing that somewhere on the Internet someone's Latin is wrong? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestion re the Latin phrase ("Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus.") - I wikilinked the phrase in the userbox (User:UBX/WikiLatin) to the "Google Latin Translator" - see wikilink at => https://translate.google.com/#la/en/Nos%20Auxilium%20Facere%20Penitus%20Non%20Nutrientibus - which Google translates as follows => "We help make the Internet not suck." [Note: edit-add => the related phrase, "Nos Auxilium Facere Interrete Non Nutrientibus.", based on one of your suggestions, is also translated by Google the same way - as => "We help make the Internet not suck."] - your own suggested phrasing - which may be better - and more correct - is translated (on Google Translate) as follows => "Iuvamus ne interrete sugat." => "Helps prevent internet suck." - interestingly (to me) - capitalizing seems to give a different phrase (on Google Translate) as follows => "Iuvamus Ne Interrete Sugat." => "Internet helps prevent sugar. - nonetheless - I may consider changing the phrase to your suggestion - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup: Updated Latin motto to the following => "Nos Auxilium Facere Interrete Non Lactaverunt" - based on Google Translate - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

TfD re Template:News media

Template:News media has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Champion: - Thank you for your comments - and notifying me of the TfD re the Template:News media - please see my added comment at the TfD discussion page - and/or - the copy posted below:

Copied from "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 14#Template:News media":

• Strong keep - { {reply|Champion|Dimadick|Marxistfounder|Rjensen|Srich32977|The Four Deuces}} - Please note that the "Template:News media" template, currently transcluded 22 times at the following links, concerns news source audiences, *not* the news sources themselves - that is, the "Template:News media" template presents the rankings of "responding audience" results – not the rankings of "news sources" results – across the political spectrum - ALSO - Please see "recent related discussion" re Template:News media at the following => "Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Template_.22.7B.7BNews_media.7D.7D.22_OK_for_.22article.22_-_or_Not.3F" - as well as => "Template talk:News media" and "Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2#Useful charts but not deliberate hoax fraud" - In support of keeping the "Template:News media" template, the following related very recent (2016) references may be helpful:

• Pew Research Center (2016)
• Journalism (2014)
• VOtero Chart (2016)
• VOtero Chart/original (2016)
• VOtero Chart (2016) - Rationale

hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments and notification - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four

Hi -- I saw your most recent addition to Nineteen Eighty-Four, and your edit summary suggesting discussion on the talk page. There's already a discussion there, with only two commenters so far; could you add your thoughts there? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments - and for letting me know of the discussion at Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four#"Alternative facts" - added comment copied below:

FWIW - Seems the following edit is relevant, worthy and very well sourced - and should be mentioned in the article - including the lede:

Copied from "Nineteen Eighty-Four article (version 21:39, 26 January 2017)":

More recently, in January 2017, the novel has again become a best seller book, seemingly in response to apparent attempts by members of the White House staff to present possible misinformation, according to news articles.

References

Hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Good move!

Ahoy thar Dr!

Per edit, yes, the self revert was indeed a good move as the second bullet point near the top says Wait at least 3 months before listing someone who has simply ceased editing, unless you have some other reason for being certain that they have left. And, as I believe you may have figured out, 19th November 2016 + 3 Months is actually 19th February 2017.

Thanks for trying though, faces doing a bit around 'Missing Wikipedians' is always nice. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 16:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - reverting my own edit seemed indicated - esp after noticing the Wait note at the page top - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Life timeline"

I notice that you have added the Template:Life timeline to articles such as Pterosaur, Brontosaurus, and Archosaur. While, granted, the template is quite nice, I don't really see the relevance of this template to those articles, since the template doesn't even mention them. Cheers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes and FunkMonk: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - the reason the Template:Life timeline was added to the noted dinosaur articles (since reverted: Pterosaur; Brontosaurus; Archosaur) was that the Template:Life timeline provides an overall perspective of the evolution of dinosaurs - and - as a result - seemed a worthy addition to the dinosaur articles - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, it would be relevant to every single article about a living organism, which may be a bit much! What makes it more relevant to an article about a specific dinosaur genus than to a specific genus of living mammal, for example? Just for future reference. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thanks for your reply - yes - *entirely* agree - although the Template:Life timeline may be relevant to all organism articles, could be a bit much adding the template to them all of course - perhaps adding the template to selected articles may be sufficient - and better - I would think - in any regards - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd think maybe placing it on very broad articles such as animal, plant, palaeontology, so on, would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thanks again - yes - agree - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Global biodiversity into Life. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions re attribution - yes - some relevant text/refs has been copied between Wikipedia articles - in some cases, I've been the original author of some or all of the copied material - one example - hope this helps in some way - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but even though you are author of the copied material it would be very helpful and speed up the processing of the bot reports if you would mention in your edit summary at the destination article what the source article was. Not technically required, but useful nevertheless. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Colors of Biotechnology

Hi! We are students writing an article on Colors of Biotechnology as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have interest in these kinds of topics, we would like to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at this article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time.--Brenmoba (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Brenmoba: Thank you for your comments - and invitation - at the moment, I'm *very* busy with one thing or another - but - Thank you, in any regards, for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Prehistoric Autopsy

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the web page http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Autopsy, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - agreed - *entirely* no problem whatsoever removing the content of course - I'm *very* happy, in fact, to learn about this since I was unclear whether the content was somehow related to Wikipedia - or not - after all - the word "DocuWiki" - and the logo "MediaWiki" (in the lower right of the http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Autopsy page) seemed to suggest to me that the content may be somehow related to Wikipedia - also - I was unable to locate a copyright notice on the http://docuwiki.net/ website - to check copyright policy - nonetheless - based on the assumption that the DocuWiki content was Wikipedia-related content, I had included the following message in the edit summary => "added relevant text/ref - per WP:ATT & WP:CWW - from http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Autopsy - a/o 23 March 2017" at the time of the edit (ie, "10:13, 23 March 2017") - my Prehistoric Autopsy article was very newly created - and the episode detail section was intended to be temporary - until I found time to rewrite it in a better, and perhaps, more detailed way - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thank you *very much* for clarifying the situation - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software is freely available, and there's lots of wikis out there, most of which are not related to our Wikimedia Foundation. Many of them are not compatibly licensed. Those that are will have a CC-by-SA statement at the bottom of every page. Compare for example this one and this one. Cheers. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done - @Diannaa: BRIEF Followup - Thanks again for your recent help - and clarifications - the Prehistoric Autopsy article has been expanded to some extent and now seems better - let me know if otherwise - Thanks again for your help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

SD re Dark Odyssey

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dark Odyssey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kleuske (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: - Thank you for your comments - and notifying me of your concerns re the newly created "Dark Odyssey" film page - *strong keep* of this newly created page - please see a copy of my comments posted below:

Copied from "Talk:Dark Odyssey#tag":

-- Contested deletion --
@Kleuske: This "Dark Odyssey" film page is not unambiguously promotional, because I have just now (one-minute *before* the addition of the deletion tag? - please see the page history) began creating this "Dark Odyssey" film page and am currently in the process of expanding the page - I had initially noted that the page was "{{under construction}}" for expansion and related - and the article has since been substantially expanded - with further text and references - especially referring to a New York Times film review and related references - and also - the addition of a relevant image/caption (at => File:DarkOdyssey-1961FilmByRadleyMetzger.jpg) - the "Dark Odyssey" film page should now be even more acceptable - at least for starters for even further expansion effort(s) - Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks again for your comments and notification - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removed. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Settlement of the Americas

I think it's too early for inclusion, but in any case "fiercely disputed " kept out st me in the source, maybe it should have been mentioned . Doug Weller talk 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - perhaps a bit too early to include - although perhaps sufficiently worthy to provide some awareness to others who might have an interest - [Note: "Cerutti Mastodon site", a relevant article has been recently created] - nonetheless, the edits were made in good faith as possible improvements to the articles - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Muon g-2 link

Hi Drbogdan, just a quick note: The IP edit was very useful, Muon g-2 was a redlink while Muon_g−2 has an actual article (that didn't exist when I added the entry). After the IP edit I added a redirect from Muon g-2 to Muon g−2 (note the different minus signs). --mfb (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and clarifying the IP edit - didn't notice the different minus signs at the time - but notice them now - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

KIC 8462852 Normalized Flux images

Hey Doc, would you mind if I renamed those KIC 8462852 flux images to be a bit less codey, and to replace File:KIC8462582-NormalizedFlux-20170502-20170617-BruceGary.jpg with the daily normalised flux instead of the V-band, just so they're all of the same type? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've thought about it a little more, I'd like to replace the dailies with the V-band graphs. The dailies only give error bars, whereas the V-band graphs give individual data points, which I think may be more useful overall. What are your thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and concerns - yes - *entirely* agree with your suggested changes to the images - seems better imo - no problem whatsoever - may want to be sure image filename is exactly ok (ie, the "KIC 8462852" part) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wilco, thanks for the quick response. Have a good weekend! — Huntster (t @ c) 00:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Astrobiology Magazine cover images

@ShakespeareFan00: Thank you for your recent notifications re Astrobiology Magazine cover images - *entirely* ok with me to now delete these cover images - since they're no longer useful for the article - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Astrobiology Magazine cover images
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-EukaryoticCell.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-EukaryoticCell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC) ==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-LifeOnEarth.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-LifeOnEarth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC) ==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-MilkyWayGalaxy.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-MilkyWayGalaxy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC) ==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-NASA-MarsCuriosityRover.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-NASA-MarsCuriosityRover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic Music Therapy (NMT)

Dear Dr. Bogdan,

I hope are doing well.

My name is Kyurim Kang. On the behalf of the Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy, I am posting this message. First, we appreciate your contribution to the NMT Wikipedia page. We are now trying to develop and revise the NMT Wikipedia page under the NMT Advisory Council to ensure that we provide accurate information about NMT to the public. We recognized that there is some ambiguous information on the page, so we are considering editing the entire page. However, we would like to kindly ask your permission before we delete your information. We are also happy to have your suggestions for editing the NMT page. If you have any questions, please email to kyurim.kang@mail.utoronto.ca. Again, we really appreciate your contribution.

Best Regards, Kyurim Kang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyurim1 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kyurim1: Thank you for your comments - and noting your plans to update/revise the Neurologic Music Therapy article - seems being mindful of a possible conflict-of-interest (see WP:COI, and related posting on your talk-page) re the article may be relevant - for my part, no problem whatsoever - especially if all's *entirely* ok otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Panspermia revert

Thanks for your revert, restoring the material I added! I was reading the Talk page over and over trying to find any discussion on this topic without success. As I was doing this, your revert happened! I wonder if that editor honestly misconstrued something, or was just making it up - and gave that reason to allow them to delete information (without push-back) that they personally did not like! RobP (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Thank you for your comments re recent WP:SPA ip edits (ie, edit-Panspermia, edit-Direct panspermia) on the Panspermia and Directed panspermia articles - *entirely* agree - no discussions, esp ones leading to WP:CONSENSUS, re the noted text, seemed to have occurred on the related talk-pages (ie, Talk:Panspermia, Talk:Directed panspermia) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)